Zimbabwe petition

I agree with the petition. It is interesting that many people who supported him (not referring to you Richard or others who comment on this thread) his “anti-apartheid” stance which forcibly took land from people and gave it to the poor and said that it would help the people as a whole, yet the economy is bad and the policies of Mugabe are vicious against those who are against him continue to confirm the fact that Communism and socialism doesn’t work. Communsim and Socialism place greater power to the “prolitariot” and to “indiviuals who abuse power over its people” rather than have it with the people as a democratic-republic.

I’m against apartheid but to forcibly take land from people who have owned the land for multiple generations seems terrible. Even if the guy wasn’t “vicious” he still doesn’t deserve any support.

dh, I think you need to watch out on how the two issues are treated. It cannot be a simple formula that if Mugabe = “land reform” =Socialism/Communism therefore it should be dismissed out of hand.

What has been seen in Zimbabwe is not a popular mass movement working together to claim and collectivise the land, instead we have seen a small amount of land forceably taken from the hands of those who know how to work it and handed over to the new political elite, ie the Cronies and a section of the supporters of Mugabe. This is not collectivisation where “the people” own the land because it is not the people.

For collectivised land is for the benefit of all people, it brings with it a concept of equality that is about the community all working together. Therefore if it was to be socialist in style then it wouldn’t have driven all those working the land off but it would have broadened who uses the land.

(For a concise, horrific and real account of what is occurring in Zimbabwe then it is worth tracking down the book “The Battle for Zimbabwe” by Geoff Hill. It gives good analysis and also explains why South Africa dare not involve itself in the issue.)

In “The Guardian” there has been a series of stories from the Uk about co-operatives that have taken over the running of a variety of “core services” within a village and now they run a successful pub, brewery and post office shop! This idea of cooperatives can work properly and is one that should be applied a lot more than it currently is

I was just pointing out how all of these people were “praising Mugabe” on this “redistribution” and it is funny how my original analysis of this situation is correct. How aboutb those people who owned the land for over a century who were forced to give up their land? How about their rights? It doesn’t work because the leaders who are in charge of “redistribution” a majority of the time look out for their own best interest rather than the people. Fact is Communism doesn’t work and strict Socialism doesn’t work. However, Cooperatives do work because there is no government influence, it is limited and it is not forced onto people.
What do people do when they don’t want to be part of a “cooperative”, Socialistic society, Communistic society? I think when one looks at “cooperative” that is what it is people who CHOOSE to do these things rather than be forced onto people to do these things.

Well, I think the Mugabe actions PROVE that this so-called “land reform” doesn’t work because there is always someone in charge who facilitates the “redistribution” of land that hurts the people the land is being redistributed to. This doesn’t even begin to address those whose land was taken away and their rights. This is different from “cooperative” where it is outside of the government AND NOT FORCED ONTO PEOPLE.

Cooperatives OUTSIDE of the government that are not forced but voluntary=okay, government forced (even if elected by the people) cooperatives= not okay because the rights of those who don’t want to be part of that are not protected. When these things are GOVERNMENT FORCED it becomes equal to stealing. When it is voluntary like the cooperatives I have been around IT IS PROPER. (see how the balance is here).

There is a big difference between “Communism” and “Cooperatives”. Even in areas where the people own the land there will be people who are the leaders in charge of this “peoples land” and in a majority of the time those leaders operate in the best interest of themselves. At least a tendency toward that.

How could people be “duped” by Mugabe like that? How can the some of the West who “praised Mugabe” be duped as well? I guess history repeats itself. Every communistic governement is not a success. Cooperatives are not included because they are voluntary and those who choose not to be part of it are protected and can pursue their interests without being a detrimate to the cooperative itself. When government or leaders, etc. become involved in these type of “economic reforms” then it is destined to fail.